Visuomeniniai teismai kaip tobulesnio piliečio ugdymo praktika tarpukario Lietuvoje (1918–1940)

ENThe article focuses on the analysis of public courts in interwar Lithuania. The process of a public court arrangement was very popular in interwar Lithuania (1918–1940). Public courts were an imitation of courts as they resembled an actual legal process in their form, their course, and the cast of participants: there were judges, prosecutors, lawyers, witnesses, and experts. However, the accusation was not real in these courts (from the physical point of view), because it was not a real crime, but a shortcoming or a malady of society. The public court was a tool by which the socially active part of the society fought against social shortcomings and manifestations of citizens’ behaviour that were considered criminal in regard to morals and public interests. Among the defendants at the improvised court were a member of an organization (not personally named), a local intellectual, young people, farmers, a family; modern fashion; harmful habits such as smoking, alcohol consumption, etc. Representatives of almost all social groups and professions sat at the defendant’s table. The published recommendations for the preparation of public courts advised choosing a phenomenon that would be most useful for the local community in combating widespread shortcomings and disadvantages. Public courts were particularly active in forming various public organisations, irrespective of their worldview or political sympathies. In the course of the process, the prosecuted vices and the defended values expressly revealed the ideology and the world outlook of court organisers: if the organisers represented a Catholic organization, the focus was on moral issues and crimes against morality; if the organisers represented a nationalist organization, then what was considered to be criminal regarding the ideals of Lithuanian nationalism was the focus of the process.Public courts were proposed as a modern way of educating society, as a tool for the nurturing of a better citizen. It was thought that the form of a simulated court would promote a better and clearer disclosure of public shortcomings and undesirable behaviour of community members, would encourage citizens to become more inclined and object to public flaws. The hopes were that the very form of a simulation of a legal process would be more attractive to the public and would therefore be more influential. Public courts were popular in society and attracted large crowds of spectators who viewed the court hearings as entertainment. Returning the verdict against the convicted offender at the public court was a simulation of a genuine court. The purpose of a public court process was not to punish the actual offender, but to diagnose what was considered a failing or a vice in society and to eliminate it. Usually the defendant was given a conditional penalty – to rectify the misdemeanour within a specified period of time. The function of such courts was to nurture a better citizen, and some court decisions were just precepts for the accused.